• Hate speech and terrorism propagated by social media.
• Removal of content moderation adds fuel to the fire.
• Little recourse available other than personal choice.

“Combating terrorism and curtailing its reach requires the effective participation of the private sector.” So wrote Abdulaziz Al-Zaben in the monthly publication issued by the Islamic Military Counter-Terrorism Coalition’s, The Drivers of Terrorism [PDF], of May 2024.

Terrorist and extremist groups’ use of social media platforms allows them a high degree of anonymity, a worldwide reach, and the ability to create and propagate content at near-zero cost. Social platforms provided a powerful and effective medium for extremist views in conflicts in Iraq (2014-) and Syria (2011-), and more recently in the UK. Here, social media was used by right-wing extremists to marshal mobs attacking hostels and hotels housing immigrant families, following the murder of three children in Southport in 2024.

More free speech, more hate speech

Large companies operating social media platforms have had to balance the need to increase the use of their services with a desire to prevent extreme content. The equation sounds simple: more users (greater data collection, and more commercial opportunities) against inappropriate use of the service which helps create violence and hate.

It became apparent that content moderation as adopted by technology giants was reactive, rather than preventative, and seemed to be framed as a concession made by the big platforms after legal action, or threat of legal action taken at national level. To frame the balancing act, or equation, differently, national governments’ desire to prevent mainstream publication and amplification of hateful messages was played against the pure free-marketism advocated by the private sector.

The removal of content moderation, such as it was, by Meta, is not being replaced by AI algorithms’ inherent efficiency, as Mark Zuckerberg implied in his testimony to the US House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2018. The rolling-back of hate-speech prevention measures leaves a vacuum that can be filled by anyone with an account on the Instagram, TikTok, or Meta. It’s logical that those with more resources to dedicate to disseminate any message will be heard (and amplified) more clearly than an individual voice. This is the embodiment of digital free-marketism, where popularity of product or opinion is determined not by its inherent worth, but by the price the opinionated are able to pay.

That’s not to say that social media platforms, by their nature, actively mute any particular body of opinion. Groundswells of opinion born of genuine human responses to crises can and do have real and positive effects in the physical world. “Social media application is an irreplaceable ‘bridge’ connecting government agencies and affected citizens in the wildfire crisis,” reads the Abstract of a paper published by California State University [PDF]. Similarly, it was social media that helped co-ordinate thousands onto the streets of the UK in support of the immigrant population, after the UK’s hostel attacks mentioned above.

National curbs on hate speech

In an Express Tribune article discussing the role social media plays in terrorism and radicalisation, Canadian academic Amarnath Amarasingam stated, “the relaxation of content moderation policies on social media platforms has, in fact, provided extremist groups with greater opportunities to disseminate their ideologies and recruit members.” The article’s author, Naveed Hussain, calls for the creation of a local content moderation team in his native Pakistan, “to flag and take down harmful content swiftly.”

Here too is an embodiment of laissez-faire: If governments want to protect their citizens from hateful and dangerous content, they must foot the bill themselves, or pay the cost of social unrest, or even, in the case of Pakistan, pockets of civil war. Large companies running social media sites are free to garner free speech on as many users as possible to increase corporate income. Curtailing social media’s negative affects is not a problem it feels it has to address.

National tax authorities attempting to get some recompense for citizens who are negatively affected by social media find the going tough. As platforms “supported by 3,000 lawyers” there is little chance of public sector lawyers extracting more than pocket change from global behemoths such as X and Meta.

While Hussain of the Express Tribune calls optimistically for China to “take steps to address the algorithmic vulnerabilities of TikTok, ensuring that it doesn’t amplify radical […] narratives,” the only logical remaining option appears to be a ban on social media platforms – something that’s unwanted by the citizenry and impossible technologically.

The continuing and growing presence of terrorist and extremist voices in mainstream media (social media) is a challenge for societies. It also comes down to an individual’s choice of whether or not to participate in the greater social media arena. We can choose to not partake, thereby avoiding being influenced by means subconscious or blatant. It may be inconvenient to opt out of the swathes of online discourse that appear on social media, but it is only mildly troublesome, not life-ruining.